Attention "Creationists"

[POI]

In the never-ending/perpetual 'god debate', Christians will often quote the following from Romans 1:20 (i.e.):

"20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Meaning, we atheists know 'god' exists because of the observed 'creation' all around us. We instead choose to suppress such obvious 'observation', for this or that reason. Well, I'm here to challenge this assertion from the Bible.

Many Christians need to really think about what 'creation' actually means? Meaning, I can 'create' stuff. Running water can 'create' stuff. Erosion can 'create' stuff. Pressure and time can 'create' stuff. Etc....

If I 'create' something, in reality, I'm instead repurposing or rearranging material. But it is still intentional. A 'mind' purposed it's reconfiguration.

If nature 'creates' something, like the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, Yosemite, it was likely not reconfigured from a 'mind'. It's not intentional.

For debate:

1. Can you Christians distinguish the difference between both intentional and unintentional "creation" -- (in every case)?

Example 1: A straight row of almond trees was designed by a 'mindful' tree farmer. A random array of almond trees, in the middle of an uninhabited area, was likely not placed there 'mindfully' or intentionally.

Example 2: 99.9999% of the 'universe', in which we know about, is unihabitable for humans -- god's favorite 'creation'.

Example 3: The majority of the earth itself is also unihabitable for humans -- god's favorite 'creation'.

Example 4: An intentional mind 'created' humans, where an airway and a food pathway share the same plumbing, where a sewage system and sex organs share the same pathway, and also where a urine pathway routes directly through the prostate?

2. If you can distinguish the difference between intentional and unintentional "creation", is the author of Romans 1:20 still correct? If yes, why yes?

3. If 'science' is correct, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead only repurposed; this means there exists no reason to invent or assert a god in charge of 'creation', right?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #187]

As I already said.

...I have been posting my reasons why, on this forum for many years now. You should be able to access these posts, but given the task involved in such undertaking, my advice to anyone wanting to know my reasons and rational, would be for them to follow my posts as they are published - I post almost daily on this site - and therein discover why I think as I do.

What about that makes you think I would copy and paste posts I have already made, here in this thread as well?

If you are truly interested, you will look and learn of your own volition.

Otherwise - good luck.

Take a look at your response in post #182. Why ask me what you asked me, if you are ultimately going to tell me to just go find it? Geesh...

It is important to gauge interest. If you had of told me you were an atheist, I would have known you were definitely not interested in knowing. Since you also said you were agnostic, I thought you would perhaps be interested enough to do some leg work for yourself.

But hey! I can provide you with links to a couple of recent post I have made, if that will help ...

"Leg work"? If you are not interested enough to present your position, then just say so. I am not here to ask for people's daily blog. And then rummage through all of it, in the hopes the question is finally answered. Please do not lead people on like this.... My leg work extends to answering responses given here, not to follow everyone's writing's, entire.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #191]

The important thing is that we now understand each other.

Good luck with your examinations.

[TRANSPONDER]

"If you had of told me you were an atheist, I would have known you were definitely not interested in knowing". A case for translation from the "Theist - English dictionary".

means 'If you weren't already brainwashed into swallowing all the claims I make uncritically, then I'm wasting my time".

And come to think of it, "But hey! I can provide you with links to a couple of recent post I have made, if that will help ..." translates roughly as 'shoves a couple of tracts at him before running off' - with the innate idea of 'I won this argument, but you are too closed - minded to see it'. The Strataed depths of Theisthink bamboozlrery are quite remarkable.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #191]

The important thing is that we now understand each other.

Good luck with your examinations.

Just to add to the above, I am not sitting in some kind of judgement against others who hold different positions. I am simply acknowledging atheistic thinking for what it is, and also acknowledging that my own position is different re whether "the brain did it" or "God did it" or "something else did it".

My interests simply do not sit with arguing the dead end re the brain did it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Another one for the Ol' dictionary "While professing peace and understanding, I'll get that all - important Last word in".

While there is no peace beyond the Lie, it's never Personal. The idea is always to make a case or to rebutt another.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #191]

The important thing is that we now understand each other.

Good luck with your examinations.

Just to add to the above, I am not sitting in some kind of judgement against others who hold different positions. I am simply acknowledging atheistic thinking for what it is, and also acknowledging that my own position is different re whether "the brain did it" or "God did it" or "something else did it".

My interests simply do not sit with arguing the dead end re the brain did it.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you have nothing valid or worthwhile to contrubute, by all means, drop out of the conversation. But don't please, try to even hint at the grimy old 'I could win this, but it's so wearisome arguing with the closed -minded'.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #191]

The important thing is that we now understand each other.

Good luck with your examinations.

Just to add to the above, I am not sitting in some kind of judgement against others who hold different positions. I am simply acknowledging atheistic thinking for what it is, and also acknowledging that my own position is different re whether "the brain did it" or "God did it" or "something else did it".

My interests simply do not sit with arguing the dead end re the brain did it.

Since 'the brain did it' crowd are stuck in that dead end paradigm, there is little point in investing time arguing with atheistic thinkers which can better invested in discussion with theistic thinkers, due to the subject matter ventured into [re the maze diagram] allows for a lot more ground to being explored.

So it becomes a simple matter of prioritizing re the interest my position affords me on theistic matters.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #191]

The important thing is that we now understand each other.

Good luck with your examinations.

Just to add to the above, I am not sitting in some kind of judgement against others who hold different positions. I am simply acknowledging atheistic thinking for what it is, and also acknowledging that my own position is different re whether "the brain did it" or "God did it" or "something else did it".

My interests simply do not sit with arguing the dead end re the brain did it.

Since 'the brain did it' crowd are stuck in that dead end paradigm, there is little point in investing time arguing with atheistic thinkers which can better invested in discussion with theistic thinkers, due to the subject matter ventured into [re the maze diagram] allows for a lot more ground to being explored.

So it becomes a simple matter of prioritizing re the interest my position affords me on theistic matters.

Though I can somewhat sympathize with some 'place-holder' form of loose/general/generic 'deism', I was thrown for a loop when you mentioned 'YHWH', in regards to the probability of 'theism'.?.?.?. I'll just leave it there, since you do not really want to offer your view in this thread But... Just so you know, if you want your views vetted out, with the most vigor or counter, I would suggest throwing it into the fire, with a band of non-believers. If it still stands, then you may actually have something.... Speaking to like-minded people merely reinforces your ideas.

Unless maybe you think your level of thinking is higher than ours?.?.?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #191]

The important thing is that we now understand each other.

Good luck with your examinations.

Just to add to the above, I am not sitting in some kind of judgement against others who hold different positions. I am simply acknowledging atheistic thinking for what it is, and also acknowledging that my own position is different re whether "the brain did it" or "God did it" or "something else did it".

My interests simply do not sit with arguing the dead end re the brain did it.

Since 'the brain did it' crowd are stuck in that dead end paradigm, there is little point in investing time arguing with atheistic thinkers which can better invested in discussion with theistic thinkers, due to the subject matter ventured into [re the maze diagram] allows for a lot more ground to being explored.

So it becomes a simple matter of prioritizing re the interest my position affords me on theistic matters.

"don't please, try to even hint at the grimy old 'I could win this, but it's so wearisome arguing with the closed -minded'." He hinted at it.